I've never read the original story by Clive Barker so I don't know how similar or different the movie is. That being said, I think the original film is really good. Not sure a remake is needed at all.

Click to expand...

Because it isn't. Whoever plays Candyman will inevitably be compared to Tony Todd, and it's highly unlikely that that actor will surpass Todd's performance.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating. Go to a bookstore that groups by genre. Look at the horror section. Toss aside the King books, as they've all been made into movies or will be made into movies. Imagine that TEN percent of these novels are any good, and worth filming. We'd have a new horror movie every week for a year, original ones, not remakes or reboots.

Because it isn't. Whoever plays Candyman will inevitably be compared to Tony Todd, and it's highly unlikely that that actor will surpass Todd's performance.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating. Go to a bookstore that groups by genre. Look at the horror section. Toss aside the King books, as they've all been made into movies or will be made into movies. Imagine that TEN percent of these novels are any good, and worth filming. We'd have a new horror movie every week for a year, original ones, not remakes or reboots.

Hollywood's unwillingness to take risks has made it easy for me to steer clear of the theaters. I think I've been to the movies 3 times in the last 3 years. I'm at the point where I don't care if the film industry completely shuts down. It's becoming easier and easier to lay hands on older movies that were previously obscure or impossible to view. I'm far more interested in looking back than forward at this point.

Remaking Candyman might be the best example yet of a pure cash grab. There's NOTHING dated about the original film. The cast is top-notch, the score is amazing, and Bernard Rose brought a ton of style to relatively pulpy material. If I made a list of my top 10 post-1990 horror films, it would likely take the top spot. It's the rare horror film that deals thoughtfully with adult issues without dialing back on the gore and shocks.

The more I think about this, the more I suspect that this project is part of the afterbirth of the massive over-hyping of Get Out. I'd bet my 401k that any potential remake will pervert the original story into some type of pandering anti-racism parable. That certainly isn't likely to make me resume regular theater-going.

While I understand your cynicism (and a significant portion of my movie viewing is dedicated to older films I've not gotten around to seeing), there ARE good movies made nowadays, in all genres. In fact, I think 2017 was one of the strongest years in the recent past when it comes to movies. Just offhand, I saw and loved Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri, Ingrid Goes West, The Little Hours, Colossal, Brigsby Bear, The Florida Project, Good Time, A Day

When it comes to Hollywood/movies being “worse”today. If we take off the nostalgia glasses, there was a LOT of crap being released in the 80-90:s as well. Difference is, we were kids/teens, when we watched them and was less critical/negative about everything. The kids/teen today will feel the same about movies in 2038.
It’s always been like this.

A lot of the 80:s horror movies that I love, are crap, and I would probably not enjoy them as much, if I watched them for the first time today, as an adult.
And look at the ElmStreet, Halloween, F13th sequels, that was just made for a quick buck to get the gullible teens back into the theaters, basically watching the same damn movie for the 7th time.
Why was it okey to make sequels and remakes back in the 70:s, 80:s, 90:s, but not today?

How many times was the Universal monster movies remade/rebooted etc. back in the day. Movies from the 20:s and 30:s was remade in the 40:s and 50:a etc.

What makes Rampage worse than Beast from 20.000 fathoms?
Both are stupid monster movies, with mediocre script and acting, but awesome monster mayhem.
Yet Rampage is so much worse, because it’s a movie from 2018, instead of the 50:s?? The Harryhausen movie was also made to make money, nothing else. It wasn’t meant to me high art. It was all about the FX. Same today, same yesterday.

About a Candyman remake, maybe it’s worse, maybe it’s better, who knows.
And if it sucks, life goes on, and we still have the original. Nothing to be grumpy about

A lot of the 80:s horror movies that I love, are crap, and I would probably not enjoy them as much, if I watched them for the first time today, as an adult.

Click to expand...

I've actually seen quite a number of 80's (and 70's) horror movies for the first time as an adult and still fallen in love with them. You could argue that even though I didn't see them as a kid, they are still rooted in an aesthetic language I grew up with. Now, I don't love every horror movie made in the 70's and 80's, far from it. But I still maintain that it is rarer today to see an ultra low budget movie brimming with creativity than it was back then. There have been some excellent horror movies made within the last couple of decades, but I can't think of many effective contemporary counterparts to the regional indies of the 70's and early 80's.

As for the Candyman remake (and remakes in general), my stance is that if I like it, I like it. If I don't, it doesn't take anything away from the original for me.

I know this is wrong to feel this way but most straight to video/blu ray movies I don't take seriously. The market is absolutely flooded with them. It started in the 90's and now it's off the charts. very hard to make a mainstream movie that's original. No wonder they do remakes. If I was ruling the industry, I would force that all films get wide theatrical releases. No more straight to video. That would weed out a lot of garbage. Imagine how many legit talented actors/actresses would still be "a thing" if direct to video wasn't what it is today. No wonder why some of the most request Blu's all come from the 70's and 80's. The era when studios stood behind their projects, had the balls to release the films theatrically. Take their hits, take their losses.

In this day the original Candyman would NEVER get a theatrical release.

Example: This is not horror (Sci Fiction/ Thriller) I remember like it was yesterday when the film Replicate went direct to video. Imho, is was a good movie. Film was around $20 -30 million budget. What a shame. General public never saw it. That was the first film by Damme that didn't go theatrical. After that, they ALL went direct to video.

Another. If Event Horizon was released today .... direct to video. And that's a fact. Those Saw movies are the exception. They actually got lucky. By the skin of their teeth the original got released theatrical. Which was great, look how well they have done. ALL films should get a wide theatrical release.

Could never really get the love for Candyman. It has definite weird moments, but isn't as innovative as it gets credit for. The tension feels forced, and it doesn't stand out as scary. What it is, is ponderously, inexplicably maudlin.

There is one, and only one, real reason the film does not implode under their weight of its own excessive attempts at emotional gravity. And that is Tony Todd. Any attempt to remake the film will have to ditch the heavy gothic morbid romance chains, or fail miserably for lack of someone like Todd who could play such a tone without the audience laughing their arse off for the absurdity of it.

I consider it a film not worth remaking because it wasn't the film that was good, it was the main actor.

CANDYMAN doesn't need a stinkin' remake, reboot or whatever term they're using to describe REMAKE. There is a lot of fresh-to-make material out there. The idiot investors simply see $$$ from an established product. They're too scared to invest in something new. end of.
wimps.

Could never really get the love for Candyman. It has definite weird moments, but isn't as innovative as it gets credit for. The tension feels forced, and it doesn't stand out as scary. What it is, is ponderously, inexplicably maudlin.

There is one, and only one, real reason the film does not implode under their weight of its own excessive attempts at emotional gravity. And that is Tony Todd. Any attempt to remake the film will have to ditch the heavy gothic morbid romance chains, or fail miserably for lack of someone like Todd who could play such a tone without the audience laughing their arse off for the absurdity of it.

I consider it a film not worth remaking because it wasn't the film that was good, it was the main actor.

Click to expand...

Except the film is good, not just Todd. In fact all the cast is pretty damn solid here. I love the idea of urban legends in general and I think the idea of Helen researching them and then becoming intertwined in one is a great concept.